Trial of Dr. Pritchard

By William Roughead and R. E. Pritchard

A detailed account of the sensational murder trial that shocked Victorian Scotland and ended in Glasgow’s last public hanging.

In July of 1865, Dr. Edward William Pritchard was put on trial for the murder of his wife and mother-in-law. He slowly poisoned his wife, Mary Jane, while pretending to treat her for a mysterious illness. When her mother came to help care for her, Pritchard poisoned her, as well. He then falsified both women’s death certificates.

Over the course of the trial, dramatic testimonies exposed Pritchard’s scandalous past, his infidelity, and the suspicious death of a servant girl he was suspected of killing years earlier. Pritchard was found guilty and was sentenced to death by hanging in Glasgow Green.

• Language: English
• Publisher: MysteriousPress.com Open Road
• Release date: Jan 25, 2022
• ISBN: 9781504074919

R. E. Pritchard

R.E.Pritchard was formerly a lecturer in English at Keele University. He has also edited Poetry by English Women, The Sidney Psalms, Lady Mary Wroth and Dickens's England.

Book preview

The Trial of Dr. Pritchard

Edited by William Roughead

Introduction.

In the notable series of evil and forbidding portraits which forms our national picture-gallery of crime, the sinister presentment of Dr. Pritchard is entitled to an eminent place. Comprehensive as that collection, unhappily, is, it exhibits no more infamous example of unfeeling cruelty, masked by crafty dissimulation, in the relentless pursuit of a deadly purpose. The secret poisoner is the most dangerous of malefactors; and he is specially to be dreaded when, as here, he prosecutes his subtle design in the two-fold disguise of loving relative and assiduous physician. The relation that existed between the perpetrator and his hapless victims—the one his wife, the other her mother—the affectionate terms upon which they lived; the terrible suffering, which, in the case of the former, it was part of his nefarious scheme to produce and continue during long and painful weeks; and the fact that these two confiding women, in their dire necessity, relied for help upon the very hand that was mercilessly raised against their lives, combine to make this offence one of the blackest recorded in the annals of crime.

The case of Dr. Pritchard, while lacking those elements of romance and mystery which give to that of Madeleine Smith its unique attraction, affords a psychological problem of much interest, and presents many curious and striking features to the student of criminal anthropology. No other trial of the period—excepting the celebrated Rugeley case, with which it has many points in common, suggesting that Pritchard had studied and improved upon the experience of Palmer—excited more widespread attention, not only among members of the medical profession, but also of the general public throughout the United Kingdom. The scene of the double tragedy, in the words of the Lord Justice-Clerk, is all confined within the four walls of the dwelling-house in Sauchiehall Street, and but forty years have elapsed since the curtain fell upon that sorry drama of domestic treachery and sin; yet only in the darkest times of medieval intrigue, when poisoning was reduced to a fine art and practised as a lucrative profession, can we find a parallel to the monstrous nature of its plot and the cynical hypocrisy of its guilty author.

Edward William Pritchard was the son of John White Pritchard, a captain in the Royal Navy, and was born at Southsea, Hampshire, on 6th December, 1825. After going through the usual preliminary education, he was apprenticed, in September, 1840, to Messrs. Edward John and Charles Henry Scott, surgeons of considerable practice in Portsmouth. During his apprenticeship, it is stated that he diligently studied the elementary branches of his profession, and conducted himself with propriety. There is considerable uncertainty with regard to the next step in his career. One account states that, on completing his apprenticeship, he proceeded to London, and entered on his hospital studies at King’s College in October, 1843; but the officials of that institution denied that there was any foundation for the statement, which appears to have been based on the entry relating to Dr. Pritchard in the Medical Directory, which, in turn, probably depended on his own veracious authority. A contemporary writer remarks, Whatever the extent of his medical education, and however it may have been acquired, it appears that the doctor’s application to study was never remarkable; for all competent judges subsequently agreed in pronouncing him the shallowest of sciolists, so far as knowledge of his profession was concerned.

Dr. Pritchard seems from the first to have been destined for the naval service, in which several of his relatives are said to have held high rank. Two of his uncles are stated to have been admirals, one of his brothers, Francis Bowen Pritchard, was a surgeon in the Navy, and another, Charles Augustus Pritchard, acted as secretary to the Naval Commander-in-chief at Plymouth. Pritchard memorialised the authorities of the College of Surgeons to be allowed to offer himself for examination at an earlier period than was at that time permitted; and his application having been granted, he appeared before the Court of Examiners on 29th May, 1846, and, after the usual examination, was admitted a member of the College. He underwent an examination before the Navy Board, was duly gazetted an assistant surgeon in Her Majesty’s Navy, and joined H.M.S. Victory on 2nd November, 1846. In this capacity Pritchard made voyages to the Pacific and Northern Oceans and the Mediterranean, during which period he held the following commissions of service:—H.M.S. Collingwood, 24th December, 1846; H.M.S. Calypso, 20th March, 1848; H.M.S. Asia, 13th February, 1850; and lastly H.M.S. Hecate, 25th September, 1850.

It was, it is stated, while serving in the last-mentioned vessel on the home station, that Dr. Pritchard first met the lady who afterwards became his wife. Miss Mary Jane Taylor was the only daughter of Mr. Michael Taylor, a highly respected silk merchant, who resided in Edinburgh. The young lady was at the time staying with her maternal uncle, Dr. David Cowan, a retired naval surgeon, who had settled in Portsmouth. During her visit, the Hecate came into port, and at a ball which took place shortly afterwards, she was introduced to her future husband and destroyer. The young surgeon commenced to pay his addresses, and when he subsequently asked her to become his wife, Miss Taylor accepted him with the full approval of her relatives. The marriage took place in the autumn of 1850, but for some time the young couple were compelled to live much apart. The husband was not possessed of sufficient means to leave the service and provide his wife with a home. He therefore continued to cruise with the Hecate, while Mrs. Pritchard returned to her father’s house in Edinburgh.

Meanwhile his wife’s relations were endeavouring to secure for Dr. Pritchard some suitable opening on shore as a private practitioner. Such an opportunity was found at Hunmanby, in Yorkshire; and in March, 1851, he resigned the service and commenced practice in that place, where he and Mrs. Pritchard first took up house. Shortly after settling at Hunmanby, Dr. Pritchard opened a branch in the neighbouring town of Filey, then a rising watering-place, and was appointed medical officer of the No. 3 district of the Bridlington Union. During his residence there, he published various books on subjects connected with the locality, and contributed articles to medical and other journals.

With reference to this period of his career, the following extract from the Sheffield Telegraph, published shortly after the trial, is of considerable interest:—"Dr. Pritchard, the poisoner, is well known at Hunmanby and Filey, where he practised before his removal to Glasgow. He left those places with a very indifferent reputation. He was fluent, plausible, amorous, politely impudent, and singularly untruthful. One who knew him well at Filey, describes him as the ‘prettiest liar’ he ever met with. He pushed his way into publicity as a prominent member of the body of Freemasons, and made that body a means of advertising himself. In the carte-de-visite we have seen of him he is taken in the insignia of the order. His amativeness led him into some amours that did not increase the public confidence in him as a professional man; and his unveracity became so notorious that, in his attempts to deceive others, he succeeded only in deceiving himself. Hunmanby and Filey were much too small for a man of that kind. He was soon found out. His imagination overran the limits of probability, as much as his expenditure overran his means; and, if we are rightly informed, he left Yorkshire in discredit and in debt. It was said of him after he had gone, that he spoke the truth only by accident, and seemed to be an improvisor of fiction by mental constitution and by habit." Other contemporary local journals comment upon his mendacious character and doubtful reputation during his residence in Yorkshire, which appears to have extended over a period of about six years.

In 1857 Dr. Pritchard purchased the diploma of Doctor of Medicine in absentia from the University of Erlangen. He also became a Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries of London on 1st April, 1858. Having sold his practice in Yorkshire, he accepted an offer to act as medical attendant to a gentleman travelling abroad; and in the autumn of 1859 he left England and visited Egypt and the Holy Land, his wife, meanwhile, going back to her parents’ house in Edinburgh.

When Dr. Pritchard returned from his travels, in June, 1860, it was decided that he should recommence practice in Glasgow, and he shortly thereafter took up house with his wife and family at No. 11 Berkeley Terrace there. From his first appearance among them, his medical brethren of that city seem to have regarded him with suspicion and dislike. To some of these he brought letters of introduction; but the statements he made as to his previous career and exploits were so manifestly false that they considered him a person unworthy of credit, and one with whom they desired no further acquaintance. Like his more celebrated professional prototype, Dr. Fell, he appears to have inspired in many of those with whom he came in contact an unaccountable feeling of repulsion, notwithstanding the plausibility of his manners and his indefatigable desire to please. He made several attempts to gain admittance to the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons, but was unable to find a Fellow to undertake the responsibility of proposing him. In his application for membership of the various medical societies, where the only qualifications requisite were the possession of a diploma and a respectable character, he was equally unsuccessful. He is said to have been grossly ignorant of his profession, while daring and reckless in its practice. Notwithstanding the coldness with which he was treated by his medical confreres, in October, 1860, he applied for the then vacant Chair of Surgery at the Andersonian University, alleging in his application that he had had many opportunities, in almost every part of the world, of gaining practical experience, and promulgating the principles of modern surgery. In support of his candidature, he submitted numerous testimonials from well-known medical men in England, regarding the genuineness of which there was considerable dubiety. His application was, however, unsuccessful, the appointment being given to Dr. Macleod.

Disappointed in obtaining the goodwill and support of the profession, Dr. Pritchard now directed his efforts to win a more general popularity. He became a member of the Glasgow Athenæum, in the affairs of which he apparently took a lively interest; and was subsequently appointed a director of that institution and also an examiner in physiology under the Society of Arts. With a view to attracting public attention, he gave several lectures on various popular subjects, chiefly connected with his travels. A sentence from one of these, dealing with his adventures abroad—with him a frequent and favourite theme—has been preserved, and indicates the somewhat startling peculiarities of the lecturer’s style:—I have plucked the eaglets from their eyries in the deserts of Arabia, and hunted the Nubian lion in the prairies of North America. Another topic upon which he often discoursed was that of the Fiji Islands; but it was unfortunately ascertained—whatever may have been the extent of his knowledge of that interesting group—that the public accounts he gave of them were never twice the same. Dr. Pritchard was also wont to boast of an acquaintanceship with Garibaldi, of whom it was his custom to speak with fervent enthusiasm. In proof of his intimacy with that celebrated patriot it is said that, having been absent from Glasgow for some time, he, on his return, exhibited to his friends, a handsome walking stick, bearing the inscription—" Presented by General Garibaldi to Edward William Pritchard. One gentleman, however, on being shown this valuable souvenir, at once recognised it as a stick which he had formerly seen in the doctor’s possession, but without the interesting inscription. On another occasion Dr. Pritchard caused his health to be proposed at a dinner, given in connection with the Glasgow Athenæum, as that of a distinguished physiologist, and a friend of Garibaldi." These are typical instances of the doctor’s astonishing mendacity, his friendship with the Liberator of Italy being, it is understood, entirely apocryphal.

In furtherance of his scheme, Dr. Pritchard at this time became a Freemason, and assiduously cultivated the acquaintance of the local brethren. On 18th March, 1861, he was appointed to the Lodge St. Mark, of which he was elected Master in the following year; and he was admitted a member of the Glasgow Royal Arch Chapter on 4th December, 1861. In the same month he became a Knight Templar in the Glasgow Priory, and also joined the Grand Lodge of the Royal Order at Edinburgh. His fine appearance and insinuating manners are said for a short period to have won him a high place in the estimate of his Masonic brethren; but it was soon discovered that his enthusiasm and zeal proceeded solely from interested motives, and as such were, of course, fundamentally opposed to the principles of Freemasonry.

A singular and suggestive method by which Dr. Pritchard is said to have courted that notoriety for which, throughout his whole career, he exhibited an inordinate craving, was by having copies of his photograph printed off in large numbers, and supplying these at less than cost price to local stationers for sale. He was also in the habit of distributing copies freely among casual acquaintances; a curious instance of which is recorded in the case of the gentleman with whom he happened to travel to Glasgow on the evening of his arrest and to whom he presented one, which must, in the light of subsequent events, have proved an interesting souvenir.

The following description of the personal appearance and characteristics of Dr. Pritchard at this period of his career is taken from a contemporary print:—"As most of our readers are no doubt aware, Pritchard was a tallish, well-built man of a rather striking presence. His features were regular, the forehead being well arched, and the nose aquiline and slightly hooked. The upper part of the head was perfectly bald, but this defect he partially concealed by the careful adjustment of a lock of his light brown hair. One of the most prominent points in his appearance was his beard, which he wore very long, and on the trimming of which he evidently bestowed considerable pains. He dressed neatly, and his manners were characterised by an elaborate, studied politeness—the very perfection, in short, of the suaviter in modo." Personal vanity, and the desire to create a pleasing impression upon those with whom he came in contact, appear to have been at all times eminently characteristic of the man; and he seems to have been so far successful as to have acquired a considerable, though not a first-class, practice. It is stated, however, to have been a matter of public knowledge, that Dr. Pritchard took a profligate advantage of his professional opportunities to make improper attempts upon his lady patients, both married and single; and that one such incident was made the ground of a prosecution, which was only arrested from adverse circumstances overtaking the gentleman whose wife had been grossly insulted.

We now come to the first of those remarkable occurrences which were ultimately to secure for Dr. Pritchard the notoriety which, by other means, he strenuously sought. On 6th May, 1863, a paragraph appeared in the newspapers—a copy of which will be found in the Appendix—setting forth particulars of a mysterious fire which took place the previous day at his house in Berkeley Terrace, Whereby a young servant girl in his employment lost her life. It is beyond doubt that, in connection with his subsequent claim under his fire-insurance policy, Dr. Pritchard returned to the Insurance Company, as destroyed, certain articles of jewellery, of which no trace could be found among the debris; and that on the company resisting this claim, he ultimately abandoned it, and accepted a small portion of the amount. More uncertainty, however, relates to the part played by him in the tragedy of the girl’s death. Dr. Pritchard was examined by the authorities in connection with the affair, and a post-mortem examination of the body took place; and though no further action was taken by them, considerable suspicion appears to have attached to him at the time, which subsequent events went far to confirm. In commenting on this occurrence after the trial, a contemporary writer observes:—We may pass over certain coincidences as being merely curious—that, for instance, of Dr. Pritchard coming to the door (dressed, it is to be presumed, for there is nothing to the contrary in the statement) only after the policeman rang, though he admits having been up a considerable time before that; the absence of Mrs. Pritchard and the other maid; the exception on this particular night of his usual act of seeing and questioning the servant as to whether he had been wanted; we say nothing of the difficulty of burning a volume of a book so as to take away all trace of it; and the insurance is too common a thing to deserve much attention. But it requires a large amount of very easy credulity to believe that the girl, under the circumstances stated, would either not have escaped by the door (only a few feet from the bed), or made an attempt in that direction, or at the very worst would not in the lie of the body, and in the contraction or contortion of the muscles, have exhibited some of the ordinary indications of pain. We can easily conceive a case where, by the sudden influx from another quarter of a great body of smoke, a person in a deep sleep may be so suddenly caught by asphyxia as to be choked as she lay, yet even in that case there will always be some contraction or contortion; but in the case we are examining the smoke had its beginning in the room; it was therefore under the law of progress, it was close by the sleeper, and it is scarcely possible to conceive that a young, active woman would not have been quickened by the first touch of asphyxia either to an attempt at escape, or a voluntary or involuntary action of the muscles. Such absolute quiescence as set forth would seem to amount to a physical impossibility. The only presumption which can make the story quadrate with natural laws, is that the girl was dead, or under the influence of a soporific, before the fire was kindled. As to the means of the death, or the hand that applied the flame, these must be left to the judgment or imagination of the reader. Dr. Pritchard’s record is, however, sufficiently black as it is; and, in the absence of direct proof of his guilt, it would be unjust to credit, or rather debit, him with this additional crime.

Doubtless in consequence of this unpleasant episode, Dr. Pritchard removed at Whitsunday, 1863, to No. 22 Royal Crescent; and at that term, the place rendered vacant by the death of his former housemaid, was taken by Mary M‘Leod, a girl of fifteen years of age, whose connection with his establishment was to prove only less fatal than that of her unhappy predecessor. Whatever may have been his relations with the latter, we learn from his own confession that he seduced this girl, during his wife’s absence at the coast, in the summer of that year; and the intimacy between them continued, as admitted by Mary M‘Leod in her evidence at the trial, until shortly before Mrs. Pritchard’s death in the spring of 1865.

After remaining for a year at 22 Royal Crescent, Dr. Pritchard, at Whitsunday, 1864, removed to a house which he had purchased in Clarence Place, then one of the divisions of Sauchiehall Street, where he continued to reside during the events brought out at his trial, and until the time of his arrest. It is interesting to note that this house, situated a few doors west from Mains Street, is within a short distance of Blythswood Square, celebrated as the residence of Madeleine Smith. The agreed-on price was £2000, but £1600 was borrowed on security of the property; and as Mrs. Taylor, his mother-in-law, provided a sum of £500 to meet the balance, the doctor acquired his new residence upon easy terms. With reference to the payment of this sum, Mrs. Taylor wrote to her daughter Mrs. Pritchard—I have told him (the law agent) to get the order drawn for the money in two sums, one for four hundred pounds and one for one hundred pounds, so as Edward may hold the hundred in his own hand and pay the other £400 as part of the purchase-money. I have done it in this way so as these lawyers may not get hold of the whole £500, and keep it under some pretence or other. Now, my dear Mary, you must take care that this money is well spent. We have all felt the trouble in getting it; and I have no doubt it would be a source of satisfaction to us all if it is the means of getting Edward forward in life, and much depends on his going on quietly and perseveringly—he is now in a better position, and with his industrious and steady attention to his practice, all will be well. Give him my kind love and earnest wishes for success. Notwithstanding the fact that his practice appears to have been considerable, he must at this time have been in some financial straits, for Mrs. Taylor writes to him—Once more let me express the hope that a very short time will relieve you from all this trouble. I will do all I can to push the thing on. My love to Mary and the children. Ever, dear Edward, yours affecty., Jane Taylor. It further appears from a letter which that lady wrote to her daughter, that the sum she thus advanced was a loan and not a gift, as subsequently stated by Dr. Pritchard, for she refers to the terms on which I have advanced it, namely, that I am to have a bond over the property, so as to secure the £500 in the event of anything being unfortunate in time coming. No such security, however, was given at the time; but after Mrs. Taylor’s death, at the request of her trustees, Dr. Pritchard agreed to the loan being so secured for the benefit of Mrs. Pritchard and her children.

We also find that from this time onwards Dr. Pritchard began to overdraw his bank accounts, of which he kept two, one with the Clydesdale and the other with the City of Glasgow Bank; and with the view, no doubt, of adding to his resources he, in November of that year, took into residence with him, as pupils and boarders, two medical students named Connell and King.

In the course of the summer of 1864, according to the evidence of Mary M‘Leod, Mrs. Pritchard had discovered Dr. Pritchard kissing her in one of the bedrooms; and in the autumn, as the result of her intimacy with her master, a miscarriage took place, which Dr. Pritchard admitted was produced by him. She also stated in her evidence that, on one occasion, he told her that when Mrs. Pritchard died, if she died before him and she (M‘Leod) was alive, he would marry her.

It was in the month of October, 1864, that the condition of Mrs. Pritchard’s health first attracted the notice of the other members of the family. At this time the household consisted of herself; Dr. Pritchard; four of their five children; the cook, Catherine Lattimer; and Mary M‘Leod, who acted as both nurse and housemaid. The eldest child, a daughter, had been brought up by her grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, and resided with them in Edinburgh. The two medical students, King and Connell, carne in the beginning of November. Mrs. Pritchard was confined to bed for some time, suffering from sickness and vomiting, which she attributed to a chill; and when somewhat recovered, she went, about 26th November, on a visit to her relatives in Edinburgh. There she remained until 22nd December, when she came home to Glasgow for Christmas. During this visit she became much better in health, and continued well until a fortnight after her return, when the distressing symptoms from which she had previously suffered re-appeared with greater intensity. The sickness became more persistent, occurring usually after meals—particularly liquid food. From this time onward she was seldom able to go downstairs to take her meals with the family, and her food was either taken or sent to her own room by her husband. During the month of November, Dr. Pritchard was proved to have bought tartarised antimony and tincture of aconite, in quantities of one ounce of each; and on 8th December, he purchased an ounce of Fleming’s Tincture of Aconite, which is six times stronger than the ordinary tincture.

Mrs. Pritchard’s first serious attack of illness was on 1st February, when, in addition to violent sickness, she was seized with cramp, accompanied by severe pain, which left her in a very exhausted state. After this attack, Dr. Pritchard wrote to Dr. James Moffat Cowan, a retired medical man resident in Edinburgh, and a second cousin of his wife’s, requesting him to come through and see her. Dr. Cowan accordingly visited Mrs. Pritchard on the 7th, and stayed all night. He found her better than he had been led to expect, and apparently did not consider her case serious. Dr. Pritchard described her illness as arising from irritation of the stomach, and Dr. Cowan prescribed a mustard poultice and small quantities of champagne and ice. On the day of Dr. Cowan’s visit, Dr. Pritchard bought his second ounce of tartarised antimony and a further ounce of tincture of aconite. Dr. Cowan returned to Edinburgh next day, the 8th; and in the course of that night Mrs. Pritchard was again attacked with severe spasms, and at her own request Dr. Gairdner was called in. He was puzzled by the case, and was of opinion, from the state of excitement in which he found the patient, that she was intoxicated. To him Dr. Pritchard expressed the view that she was suffering from catalepsy, and mentioned that she had been getting stimulants on the advice of Dr. Cowan. Dr. Gairdner ordered all stimulants to be discontinued, and prescribed a simple dietary and no medicine. He called again next day, found her better, and renewed his advice; but was not asked to repeat his visit. Neither Dr. Cowan nor Dr. Gairdner observed any symptoms of fever in the case.

Dr. Gairdner was, however, very far from satisfied with the treatment which the patient was receiving; and accordingly on the 9th, after his second visit to Mrs. Pritchard, he wrote to her brother, Dr. Michael Taylor, of Penrith, expressing his dissatisfaction and strongly recommending Mrs. Pritchard’s removal to her brother’s house. On Dr. Taylor’s suggesting that his sister should come to him for a time, Dr. Pritchard expressed his perfect willingness that she should do so, but considered she was not then in a fit state to travel. It need hardly be said that the unfortunate lady was never permitted to visit her brother, which would seriously have interfered with her husband’s plans.

On Dr. Cowan’s return to Edinburgh he saw Mrs. Taylor, and recommended her to go to Glasgow to nurse her daughter who, with only two servants in a large household, required, he thought, more attention than she was receiving. Mrs. Taylor accordingly proceeded to Glasgow on Friday, 10th February, and took up her abode in that fatal house, which she was destined never to leave again alive. The day before she came, her son-in-law bought an ounce of tincture of aconite, his fourth purchase of a similar quantity of that poison within less than three months. Mrs. Taylor found her daughter confined to bed and suffering from continued sickness and vomiting; and two or three days after her arrival, Mrs. Pritchard had another attack of cramp, though not so severe as on the previous occasion. On Monday, the 13th, Mrs. Pritchard having expressed a desire for some tapioca, a packet was got from the grocers by her little boy; it was left for a short time upon the hall table; was taken down to the kitchen, either by Mrs. Taylor or Mary M‘Leod; the cook, Catherine Lattimer, prepared half a breakfast-cupful; and it was then carried upstairs by Mary M‘Leod to the dining-room. Whether Mrs. Pritchard partook of it or not does not appear; but Mrs. Taylor did, and immediately became sick and vomited, remarking, poor lady, with unconscious significance, that she thought she must have got the same complaint as her daughter. It was not proved that Dr. Pritchard was in the house when this incident occurred; but in the remainder of the packet of tapioca, which was found in the kitchen press after his apprehension, the presence of antimony was unequivocally detected.

On Thursday, 16th February, Catherine Lattimer left. She was to have done so on the 2nd, but, owing to Mrs. Pritchard’s serious illness, she could not leave until another servant was engaged to take her place. She was succeeded as cook by Mary Patterson. She did not, however, leave Glasgow; and was in the habit of calling occasionally to take the children for a walk. Upon the 18th, Dr. Pritchard purchased another ounce of Fleming’s Tincture of Aconite.

Now, Mrs. Taylor, though a strong and healthy old lady for her seventy years, had, unfortunately, contracted the habit of taking a preparation of opium, known as Battley’s Sedative Solution. She commenced to use this medicine as a remedy for the neuralgic headaches from which she suffered, and the practice had so grown upon her as to enable her to take with impunity considerable quantities of that drug. Shortly after her arrival in Glasgow, she sent the girl M‘Leod to have filled for her by the local chemists a bottle, which, apparently, she carried about with her for that purpose. On the morning of Friday, 24th February, Catherine Lattimer called at the house and saw Mrs. Taylor, who expressed great anxiety as to her daughter’s condition, and said she could not understand her illness. The old lady spent the day in the sickroom—she had been in attendance upon her daughter day and night since she came—and went down to tea with Dr. Pritchard and the family in the dining-room at seven o’clock, after which she wrote some letters in the consulting-room and sent Mary M‘Leod out to get sausages for her supper. She then went upstairs to her daughter’s bedroom, which she had shared since her arrival—Dr. Pritchard occupying the spare bedroom. A few minutes later the bell rang violently, and the servants, on going up, found Mrs. Taylor sitting in a chair very ill and trying to be sick. Hot water was brought to effect this, but to no purpose; she quickly became unconscious, and sat with her head hanging down upon her breast. Dr. Pritchard was summoned, and, having examined her, he told the boarder Connell to go for Dr. Paterson, as Mrs. Taylor had been seized with apoplexy and was seriously ill. Accordingly, shortly after ten o’clock, Dr. Paterson appeared in that chamber of death. It was the first time he had been in the house, and the result of his visit, and the course which he saw fit to adopt in regard to it, are among the most remarkable features of this case.

Dr. Pritchard met Dr. Paterson in the hall, and told him that the old lady, while writing some letters, had fallen from her chair in a fit, and had been carried upstairs to her bedroom. He added that she was in the habit of taking a drop—a deliberate and wicked lie—and said that Mrs. Pritchard had been ill for a long time with gastric fever. Dr. Paterson then proceeded to the sickroom. Mrs. Taylor, who had been lifted on to her daughter’s bed, was still alive; but he at once expressed his opinion that she was dying under the influence of some powerful narcotic. He attempted to rouse her, and, a degree of consciousness supervening, Dr. Pritchard clapped the poor lady on the shoulder, saying, You are getting better, darling, on which Dr. Paterson remarked, Never, in this world. Dr. Pritchard then told him that she was in the habit of taking Battley’s Solution, that she had recently purchased a half-pound bottle of that medicine, and that it was highly probable she had taken a good swig at it. Dr. Paterson in his evidence gives a striking picture of the occupants of that fatal room. Mrs. Taylor was dying, fully dressed, upon her daughter’s bed; and, sitting up beyond her, he observed Mrs. Pritchard, whom he then saw for the first time, in a state of pitiful agitation and distress; and the conviction forced itself upon his mind that she was under the depressing influence of antimony. He did not speak to her, however, or question her husband as to her condition, but left the house. Shortly before one o’clock Dr. Paterson was again sent for, but refused to go, as he considered Mrs. Taylor’s case hopeless.

At one o’clock in the morning of Saturday, 25th February, a fortnight after her arrival in Glasgow, Mrs. Taylor died. Mary Patterson, with the assistance of Mrs. Nabb, a woman who washed for the family, proceeded to dress the body, and in the pocket of the old lady’s dress they found her bottle of Battley. While they were thus occupied, Dr. Pritchard came into the room and asked for the bottle, which, he said, M‘Leod told him had been found. On seeing it he exclaimed, Good heavens, has she taken all that since Tuesday! and cautioned them to say nothing about it, as it might lead to trouble, and it would never do for a man in his position to have it talked about. He then removed the bottle. In it were subsequently detected an appreciable quantity of antimony, and also aconite to the extent, in the opinion of Professor Penny, of about seven per cent of the entire contents. On the 27th, Catherine Lattimer called, and was shocked to hear from Dr. Pritchard of Mrs. Taylor’s sudden death; We have a sad house to-day, Catherine, said the doctor.

On Wednesday, 1st March, Dr. Pritchard met Dr. Paterson accidentally in the street, and asked him to call and see Mrs. Pritchard next day, as he was going to Edinburgh to bury his mother-in-law. Dr. Paterson did so; and, from his observation of Mrs. Pritchard on that occasion, his previous opinion was confirmed. He made no communication, however, to the unhappy lady as to his belief that her death was being slowly compassed by poison. On the 3rd, Mr. Michael Taylor, the husband of Mrs. Taylor, called on Dr. Paterson and said that Dr. Pritchard had sent him for the certificate of death. This Dr. Paterson declined to give, without stating any reason beyond that to do so would be contrary to professional etiquette. The next day Dr. Paterson wrote to the registrar, who had sent him a schedule to fill up, refusing to grant the certificate, and characterising the death of Mrs. Taylor as sudden, unexpected, and to him mysterious. The death was accordingly certified by Dr. Pritchard himself as follows:—Primary cause, paralysis: duration, twelve hours; secondary cause, apoplexy: duration, one hour. It has been pointed out to the Editor that no competent medical man would have stated these causes in such an order—apoplexy invariably preceding and producing paralysis. On the 5th, Dr. Pritchard called on Dr. Paterson and said that Mrs. Pritchard was greatly benefited by the treatment he had ordered.

From the time of her mother’s death, Mrs. Pritchard’s illness continued its mysterious course. To her dressmaker, Janet Hamilton, who saw her on 8th March, she complained of constant retching, for which she could ascribe no cause; and remarked, poor soul, that it was strange she was always well in Edinburgh and ill at home. To Mrs. Nabb, she complained of vomiting even in her sleep. Lattimer called and found her very thin and weak, and in great grief at the sudden loss of her mother. During Mrs. Taylor’s residence in the house she herself attended to her daughter’s food, and, shortly after she came, was in the habit of preparing the patient’s meals in the bedroom; but since that lady’s death her meals were, as formerly, either taken or sent to her by her husband.

It is a curious feature of this extraordinary case that, during the whole course of his wife’s illness down to her death on 18th March, Dr. Pritchard was in continual correspondence with her brother, Dr. Michael Taylor, of Penrith, minutely detailing the symptoms of the patient and suggesting modes of treatment. To his father-in-law and daughter in Edinburgh he also wrote with great frequency on the subject of Mrs. Pritchard’s ill-health, many of his letters, especially those alluding to the death of Mrs. Taylor, being couched in language which, in the circumstances, can only be described as of revolting hypocrisy. Writing to his daughter in Edinburgh some time before the death of that lady, Dr. Pritchard says—Kiss dearest grandma for me—love her and help her all you can, and when the rolling years pass away you will remember my advice and be happier far by doing so than I can positively make you understand now. Pray to our Heavenly Father quietly and alone to spare her to us, to protect you from all harm, and make you a good girl—in due time a Christian woman, and a blessing to us all. Never forget kind friends, those who have an interest in your well-doing.

On Monday, 13th March, Dr. Pritchard made what proved to be his last purchase of Fleming’s Tincture of Aconite; and that evening he sent up a piece of cheese by Mary M‘Leod for Mrs. Pritchard’s supper. Her mistress asked the girl to taste it, which she did, and at once experienced a burning sensation in her throat, followed by considerable thirst. This cheese was taken down to the pantry; and the next morning the cook, finding it there, ate a small portion, with similar results. She then became violently sick, and had to go to bed. On the following night, Wednesday, 15th March, Dr. Pritchard asked Mary Paterson to make some egg-flip for Mrs. Pritchard. While she was beating up an egg in the pantry, he said he would get some sugar for it; and she heard him go into the dining-room, where that was kept, from thence into the consulting-room, and then saw him return and drop two lumps of sugar into the tumbler. When adding hot water in the kitchen, the cook took a spoonful of the mixture, and remarked to Mary M‘Leod on its horrible taste. It was then carried by the latter to the sickroom, where Mrs. Pritchard drank a glassful, and immediately became sick. Meanwhile, the cook experienced the same burning sensations as on the occasion of eating the cheese, suffered intense pain, and vomited frequently during the night.

At mid-day on Friday, the 17th of March, Mrs. Pritchard’s bell rang violently three times. At the third ring Mary Patterson, the cook, went upstairs to see what was the matter, and why M‘Leod, whose business it was to answer the bell, did not do so. Not being sure which bell had rung, she went to the consulting-room door, which, though partly open, refused to open further when she tried it. She then began to ascend the stairs, and, on looking back, saw Dr. Pritchard at the consulting-room door, who called to her, How is Mrs. Pritchard now? and then came upstairs after her, followed by Mary M‘Leod. Shortly after this incident Patterson, on returning to the bedroom, saw Dr. Pritchard giving his wife something to drink out of a porter glass. At five o’clock the same afternoon Mrs. Pritchard had a severe attack of cramp, and became light-headed, speaking of Mrs. Taylor as though she were present, and telling the servants not to mind her, but to attend to her mother. At eight o’clock Dr. Paterson was called in, and was greatly struck by the alarming change for the worse in Mrs. Pritchard’s appearance since he last saw her on the 2nd. She was at this time quite conscious, and told him she had been vomiting; but Dr. Pritchard said she had not, and was only raving. He further stated that she had not slept for four or five days. Dr. Paterson, wishing to administer a sleeping-draught at once, Dr. Pritchard told him that he kept no drugs in the house; Dr. Paterson therefore dictated a prescription, which Dr. Pritchard wrote out and sent to be made up. Dr. Paterson then left; and, Dr. Pritchard went to bed beside his wife, Mary M‘Leod lying on a sofa in the same room. Having been told by him about one o’clock in the morning to get a mustard poultice made by Mary Patterson, M‘Leod left the room for that purpose; and on the two servants returning with the poultice they found that Mrs. Pritchard was dead.

Dr. Pritchard insisted that his wife was only in a faint, and wished hot water brought to restore animation, whereupon Patterson observed that hot water was no use for a dead body. He then said, Is she dead, Patterson? and, addressing the corpse, cried out, Come back, come back, my dear Mary Jane, don’t leave your dear Edward! He also exclaimed, What a brute; what a heathen!—expressions in which posterity will be disposed to concur—and asked Patterson to get King’s rifle and shoot him. He next wrote certain letters and took them to the post, and, on returning, called Patterson up from the kitchen to tell her that his wife had walked up the street with him and had told him to take care of the girls, but had said nothing about the boys; that she kissed him on the cheek and left him. One of these letters, written in reply to a communication which he had that day received from the secretary of the Clydesdale Bank with reference to his account being overdrawn to the extent of £131 12s. 4d., was in the following terms:—"131 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow. Sir,—I am fully aware of the overdraft, and nothing short of the heavy affliction I have been visited with since the year commenced—in the loss of my mother, and this day of my wife, after long and severe illness—would have made me break my promise. If you will kindly tell Mr. Readman, to whom I am well known that immediately I can attend to business I will see him on the matter, please ask him if he can wait till after my dear wife’s funeral on Thursday.—I am, sir, yours faithfully, E

DWARD

W. P

RITCHARD.

18th